I'm with Cat, I haven't had Aperture crash since 2009 (I looked in ~/Library/Logs), and I haven't had to rebuild the library for a long time either.

I have noticed that if I leave Aperture open for a long time (a week or more, usually) I'll see some odd behavior, like an adjustment block won't work. But quitting and restarting always resolves that. And besides, given Apple's track record with v.1 software, Aperture 4.0 might be just as troublesome, though likely in different ways.

Using latest aperture 3.4.3 I believe and mt. Lion Mac Pro works fine for me no troubles but on my Mac air no good but on my iMac its just a little slow loading some times - I think the graphics card in my Mac pro helps a lot

I do a lot of books and there usually excellent has a few hiccups like font troubles and a cover printed upside doen but apple fixed for free both times and quickly

All things considered I'm ok with aperture except trying to print right from the program isn't easy so I just edit in photoshop cs6 and print

It'll come not a moment too soon. I'm pretty fed up with the crashes & hangs, database rebuilds & the rest of the nonsense.

I'd be fed up too, but Aperture has been stable for me since 3.2 or thereabouts. Since 3.0 - 3.2 was ... tipsy ... I myself am not looking forward to the leaping from 3.x to attempt a landing on the newly polished decks of 4.0.

If your installation is not unworrisomely afloat, something is wrong. I run several Libraries on a few machines in a few locations, and they are all now -- and have been for some time -- seaworthy and ocean-going.

There is an skilled group of trouble-shooters over at the Apple Discussion forum for Aperture. If you detail your problems, you are sure to receive excellent advice. (I am a frequent contributor.)

Don't know if this applies to the problems you are having, but I have not had a single Aperture library corruption issue since I bought a GRAID external disk and moved my libraries to it.

I run a 2011 Mac Air with external monitor and self upgraded RAM.

That being said, I am looking at the new $599 Mac Mini as a photoshop and aperture machine in the near future. This is only because I started stitching bigger files together and the Air is starting to lock up, probably because the RAM is not sufficient (scratch space is going over 120gig and things are getting dicey when I try to do anything with >500MB PSD files).

I described the minimum cost configuration and why I think it will be a reasonable short term solution (until I upgrade from CS5 and Aperture 3, not sure about Aperture 4 requirements yet, but CS6 seems to benefit from more cores at least) on another post here.

To close the loop on this thread, I have been having colour management issues with Aperture when printing. I just downloaded the latest driver for my HP B9180 and all is corrected. Now when Aperture 4 comes out next month I doubt I'll be an early adopter.

After loving everything about Aperture except its horrible printing, I decided to do some research and solve it. I had a huge print job coming up and didn't want to have to take everything to Photoshop to get printing I could count on and predict. I've been printing using a software driven process learned in Photoshop. Photoshop ran the profile. Even then, I always had to shift my file slightly to get it bright enough or have enough saturation.

Then I stumbled across a landscape photographer that said to let the printer drive. It can't be that simple... Does Adobe know more about my Epson printer than the company that makes it? After thinking about it, I decided not. Steve Jobs would have wanted it to be easy.

Bam! My Aperture printing has been perfect ever since. Better than anything I get out of Photoshop. In Aperture I let the printer manage the printing. In the printer driver under Mountain Lion, I have the right colorsync profile chosen for the right paper. I save that along with the usual printer settings as an Epson preset. A newer profile from ColorMunki tweaked in a slight brightness and saturation shift I had previously tweaked in Aperture. Now printing has become become automatic and straight forward.

> Then I stumbled across a landscape photographer that said to let the printer drive.

That's exactly what I found recently after getting my new Epson R3000 printer. Because it was a new printer, I experimented with different settings, but initially always set color profiles in Aperture. It was close, but never spot on. Things snapped into place after I switched to letting printer manage color.

I know many of you here might be appalled to hear this, but I use Epson Color Control rather than using ColorSync in the Color Matching tab in the print dialog. Although there's not much adjustment needed in this setting, I can easily fine tune the color or brightness of the print using the Advanced Color Settings tab under Printer Settings.

Beautifully expressed, bordering on the clichéd, but with a terseness that feels new. I might have increased the contrast a bit more (on my monitor it's a bit wispy) but perhaps that was your intent. The subject matter is well chosen -- objective correlative and all that -- but I'm left wondering if the treatment might have borne us more powerfully to the subject itself. Just my light breezes in your stilled wind. Well done.

I would have thought thatAdobe's Creative Cloud announcements would have caused some renewed interest in Aperture. I guess it is not generally assumed that Lightroom is likely to follow Photoshop into the subscription-only cloud one day. But that's my bet: a photographers' cloud with Photoshop, Lightroom, Lightroom iOS and Revel. And then a subscription-only photographers's cloud.

It did for me and a couple of my fellow photographer friends. I am in the process of moving over from Lightroom to Aperture. It's not as much work as I thought and I must admit the interface and usability of Aperture is way better than Lightroom - I am surprised how much faster and smoother Aperture works. I just wish I had never converted some of my raw files to DNG - big mistake!. Not only Aperture, but a bunch of other high end high programs have problems with DNG. I would recommend to anyone not to convert to DNG, there really is no real upside and contrary to popular opinion you really are locking yourself into Adobe.